On Netsafe and Pronouns

Who are they protecting?

Netsafe is billed as an independent non-profit organisation promoting safe and responsible use of online technology. The charity earns almost $7m providing goods and services to government departments such as Education and Justice and employs 32 full-time employees and two part-time.

In August a trans-identified male, Caitlin Spice, complained to Netsafe about a substack I’d written which included him. The column is called Gender Villains and lists all the people who have been shoring up this delusional ideology. Anyone who lives in the real world knows this ideological confection of victimhood and implausibility will eventually collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. When it does, those who have fuelled it should not be forgotten. Chances are that they will retreat to the shadows and pretend they never thought it was possible to change sex. Caitlin Spice appeared in Gender Villains IV.

My first contact with Netsafe was an email informing me of the complaint. The email said Netsafe does not make determinations on breaches of the Act. Their goal is to resolve disputes so they do not need to progress or escalate to the District Court for example. Yikes. Escalate to the District Court? Yes, really. The letter asked me to ring them, which I did.

The Netsafe woman called Sarah (no surname) advised me that most complaints are usually resolved by the removal of the harmful digital communication. Spice was offended that I’d misgendered him. That is, I had correctly sexed him as a man. Sarah explained Spice is ‘legally a woman.’ I said that didn’t alter reality. Spice is a man. Feels don’t make facts. If he was a woman, he wouldn’t need a certificate to say so.

Besides, observing someone’s pronouns or pretend sex is a social courtesy that should be the observer’s choice. It should never become compelled speech.

There are other parallels. For instance, Brian Tamaki calls himself a Bishop. He may well have a certificate to prove it. His Destiny Church followers doubtless oblige and give him that moniker. But to my knowledge the media has never referred to him as Bishop Tamaki. Does the un-Bishoped Tamaki go wailing to Netsafe or any other organisation complaining he’s been misrepresented? Does he ‘eck as like? He knows we’d all laugh. So why the craven submission to the troons?

Following that communication with Netsafe, I had more questions so we exchanged a few more polite emails and nga mihis. First, I asked how Spice was harmed by my words? Below is the reply.

With regards to concerns about hostile actions towards Ms Spice, responses have been identified by Ms Spice as comments added to the following post shared online here:

https://yvonnevandongen.substack.com/p/gender-villains-iv/comments

More questions followed:

I realise you say you have closed this case but I still have some outstanding questions.

I would like to know what harm Caitlin Spice suffered as a result of my writing. Was he not required to provide proof of harm?

The link you sent was of comments on my page that did not demonstrate harm.

Can you please expand on the harm Spice suffered?

On the phone you talked about him having suffered abuse as a result of similar text. Have you any proof of that or is his testimony sufficient?

What is Netsafe’s definition of harm?

The reply:

Netsafe accepts complaints from anyone who believes they’ve been affected by harmful digital communications. A key consideration in our assessment is the impact of the reported content. To better understand this, we ask individuals to describe how the communications have affected them personally.

As part of our process, we do not require detailed evidence to substantiate the emotional or psychological impact described. We approach these disclosures in good faith and focus on addressing the harm as reported.

It’s important to note that if someone chooses to escalate their concerns through the District Court under the Harmful Digital Communications Act (HDCA), the legal thresholds for harm differ from those applied by Netsafe.

For the Court to take action under the HDCA, it must be satisfied that:

• There has been a threatened serious breach, a serious breach, or a repeated breach of one or more of the ten communication principles outlined in the Act; and

• The breach has caused, or is likely to cause, serious emotional distress.

Further information about the HDCA and its legal framework can be found here. .

This report is now be closed. If you would like to provide feedback on our process, you may do so here.

Ngā mihi

I was, in fact, about to leave for a much anticipated trip overseas. Since I didn’t want the threat of legal action hanging over me while I was away, I agreed to remove the text.

But before I flew out, the blessed Free Speech Union got involved and put out this response to the debacle.

Harmful Digital Communications Act used yet again to silence unpopular speech

You’ve heard us bang on about the Harmful Digital Communications Act already and I am sorry to say it looks like we won’t stop discussing it any time soon.

Take journalist Yvonne van Dongen, a long-time supporter of our work. She recently wrote a piece on Substack expressing her gender critical views. One complaint later, she gets a call from Netsafe suggesting she take the piece down. Why? Because she referred to someone by their biological sex. That’s it. “Delete it and this all goes away.”

Understandably, Yvonne felt pressured to remove the post and subsequently Katrina Biggs drew attention to Yvonne’s story and reposted her comments. Netsafe have explicit powers to refuse to investigate, should they have weighed in here pressing for removal? You be the judge?

Now, you may disagree with Yvonne, or Graham for that matter. But that isn’t the point. Even the most contentious speech should be protected in free societies. Why? Because in a democracy those in power don’t get to declare, upon pain of punishment, what is and what isn’t the truth.

If this complaint goes further, we’re ready to come to the defense of Yvonne’s speech rights.

This is yet another story of the Harmful Digital Communications Act being weaponised by individuals to silence voices they disagree with.

We’re continuing our thorough review of the HDCA which we know is an arbitrary and highly censorial law being used to silence Kiwis.

Now I’m back from my trip, I feel ready and willing to take on this issue, if necessary, even though I don’t think I should have to. After all, why should I be condemned for accurately sexing someone?

In any event, you might like to see the incendiary text that started all this. Well, here it is.

Caitlin Spice, on the other hand, could be forgiven for having these views since he is a writer of fantasy fiction. Spice lives in Wellington. His main fantasy is that he became a girl in 2007. At least he doesn’t claim to identify as a scientist.

He began writing online from 2015 on. Spice is the co-author of Raven Wild, a crowdfunded transgender fairy tale, written in collaboration with Adam Reynolds and Chaz Harris.

Spice has been a vocal opponent of the gender critical movement. He was especially worried about the visit of Posie Parker in 2023, fearful that trans rights such as self sex ID could be rolled back. To be fair, we all hope that’s a realistic fear though no sign of change yet.

At the time Katrina Biggs reposted this text on her substack A B’Old Woman and nothing happened. That’s as it should be.

Men with certificates to say they are female may still be accurately sexed by others. To quote Queen Terf JKR - “Die mad about it.”